Supremes take on 2nd Amendment - Yawn

The US Supreme Court recently announced that it had granted cert to DC vs. Heller (lawyer talk for taking it up), a challenge to the District of Columbia's broad gun ban. This is the first time since 1939 that the Supremes have decided to rule on the meaning of the controversial 2nd Amendment.

As you might imagine, both pro-gun and gun violence prevention advocates have been scrambling to claim the high ground. Many on each side argue that a ruling in their favor will lead to a more civilized society...against them, the fires of hell (forgive my harmless hyperbole - you get the point).

For me, the announcement was a Ho Hum moment. I sincerely doubt, whatever ruling emerges from the imposing ersatz Acropolis on DC's First Street NE, the world will be shaken.

But, first, a little background - for those of you who have more to do with your time than memorize old, obsolete and unused Constitutional dicta - the 2nd Amendment reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

As I said, Ho Hum. How seriously must I (or anyone, for that matter) take a sentence so overwhelmingly categorical, yet which has never been used to overturn any gun regulation, ordinance or law in the 200-plus years since it was adopted?

Good question (he said) - especially as dozens of state and federal courts have for decades found that the 2nd Amendment confers NO private right to gun ownership or possession, and none, until Heller, has overruled any gun regulation on 2nd Amendment grounds in over 200 years.

So, how meaningful is the 2nd Amendment after all? You guessed it - It's not.

[For my pro-gun pals, who delight at filling up the Comments section that follows each of my entries with hostile and emotional admonitions under the banner of so-called 'rational discourse' (I hope readers will take a look at some of their incestuous craziness)...chill. Whatever apoplexy this entry may cause you, it ain't worth splitting a gut over - we'll all survive, whatever. But, keep those cards and letters coming, nonetheless.]

Oh, and about relevance...fact is, the 2nd Amendment was drafted when slow loading, firing (maybe one shot a minute) and inaccurate muskets (5' tall, ramrod for loading, bullet separate from charge) were the sole firearms available to private citizens, as opposed to today's semiautomatic handguns and assault rifles, with their rapid fire and high-capacity ammunition magazines (32 bullets fired in less than 15 seconds, for instance), as well as massively destructive .50 Caliber Sniper Rifles. Does any but a pro-gun extremist believe that the Founders would countenance unfettered access by private citizens to such destructive firepower?

That brings me back to 1939, when the Supremes ruled on the 2nd Amendment. They made it patently clear that it was inextricably concerned with that "Well regulated Militia..." of yore - in today's world, the National Guard. In the Supremes' words: "In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use (of a firearm)...has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument." So, if it ain't for the National Guard, you have no right to it. A privilege, maybe, depending upon the local, state and federal laws and regulations in place. But a right, no. Sorry, guys.

But, I've digressed more than enough. Back to Ho Hum (finally!). The likelihood that the Supreme Court will go against all precedent, strong support across the country for regulation of guns and the clear public safety need for such regulation is both unimaginable and severely doubtful. There are no absolute individual rights in any case. Even as categorical an Amendment as the preceding 1st, confers none. Public safety trumps it in specific instances (you can't yell Fire! in a crowded theater). Many other examples abound.

No, I believe that, however the Supremes rule, and they may well throw out DC's gun ban as over broad, we will be left with a situation, per today, where gun violence prevention measures will continue to be enacted, defeated, upheld and possibly even overturned on individual merit and politics, rather than some absolute right for anyone, anywhere at any time to acquire any gun in any quantity. That would be craziness, indeed.